User talk:Archduk3/Archive 18
STB stardates The table of stardates collects them as datapoints with calculated calendar dates — not the other way around. The contribution I reverted speculates that the FYM started on 2260.132 and that Kirk celebrated his birthday on 2263.04, based on mission day 966 and Kirk’s birthday in STB, but we don’t know if those were the actual stardates. If we start calculating in the other direction, the purpose of the table is lost. I’d already explained it on the Talk page. —-PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 16:37, January 26, 2018 (UTC) A thank you Since Enzo Aquarius doesn't appear to be around any more, I just wanted to pass my thanks onto you and your user page for bringing this into my life. I can't believe I hadn't found it sooner but it really brightened my day! So...thanks! --| TrekFan Open a channel 03:32, February 4, 2018 (UTC) jpEgs Hi Arch, I noticed some annoyance on your par with the use of jpeg. If there is a reason why this format should not be used it might be good to remove the format from the upload page for images. You also mentioned an issue with underscores from which I am not sure what exactly you were trying to say. 23:23, February 6, 2018 (UTC) :The list of "permitted" formats is for wikia as a whole, not MA, and can't be changed locally. While .jpegs can be uploaded, they shouldn't be, since you can simply change the file extension to .jpg on the upload page. As for underscores, they're lazy and create extra work later, since they mess with search results. For example, searching for "1 2" on a page with "1_2" won't return a result. - 23:30, February 6, 2018 (UTC) Maybe I'm misunderstanding the underscores since I see them in pretty much every single image name. Of course I do not know to what exact file or place your comment was directed since it was only visible in the history and not particularly directed to something. So please if you can when something happens that is not up to snuff put a quick not on my talk, that way it is easier for me to avoid something or alter my work method. Thanks for talking the time the help me out. 01:28, February 7, 2018 (UTC) :If you could point out where you're seeing underscores, that would help, as they are generally a rarity outside of a few templates and, obviously, web addresses. - 05:40, February 7, 2018 (UTC) As I can only think of me having used them in image names instead of spaces I can give you any such example. I have, to my knowledge, not used them as actual underlines. example:File:Cult of the pah-wraiths symbol.jpg. 17:02, February 7, 2018 (UTC) :I don't know why you're seeing underscores instead of spaces then, so all I can say is you should replace underscores with spaces, as I have in your example, when placing files in articles. - 17:27, February 7, 2018 (UTC) Ok, now at least I understand why we were having a miscommunication. So even when you remove the underscores I still see them in the address bar of any browser. But when uploading an Image I will be sure to not have underscores when uploading in the hope that that fixes the issue. If for some reason underscores are still there let me know and please remember that I am not deliberately putting them in. Btw, thanks again for your help and patience 18:03, February 7, 2018 (UTC) Banners Hello, could you help us on MA-fr ? Ours topbanners ("real wolrd article", "multiple realities", "mirror universe") are invisibles. I don't understand how to change comon.CSS for to correct that. Thank you. C-IMZADI-4 (talk) 09:04, February 8, 2018 (UTC) Hi, who could help us ? Thank you C-IMZADI-4 (talk) 07:06, March 17, 2018 (UTC) :The problem is in your MediaWiki:Common.js, which I can't edit on MA/fr. You should give sysop rights to User:Sulfur, who can make the changes you need. - 08:22, March 17, 2018 (UTC) Archbot's reversion of map change Firstly, why did Archbot change back the image I've replaced on pages like this one? Secondly, regardless of merit, if you're going to do a bot run specifically targeting edits of mine, it would have been really nice if you could maybe have checked in first. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:00, February 26, 2018 (UTC) :First, because we always use the clearer image, readers don't care if a map is directly from the show or if it's a recreation, they generally only care if it's readable. Second, it's something I just didn't get to last night, and your changing of my edits in the interim is purely a coincidence as far as my plans were concerned. - 22:16, February 26, 2018 (UTC) Sorry about the courtesy complaint, I guess I failed assume good faith there. Regarding the non-screenshot version of the map, problem is it's neither a straight tracing of the map, nor a production-sourced image. There can be no doubt that it is very close to the source material, but if you look close enough, differences emerge, both in naming and in the exact locations of stuff within the map. Subtle, but different nonetheless. Because of that, I think it should be regarded as a fan interpretation, falling short of being a recreation. Substituting an on screen graphic for a vector redrawn version only makes sense if our version is functionally identical, no? -- Capricorn (talk) 23:12, February 26, 2018 (UTC) :If the current recreation isn't up to snuff, then we shouldn't have it. The only reason to have a recreation is for it to be used like this. If you have a way to better duplicate the onscreen version, now would be the time. Otherwise, I can do another run tomorrow switching them back and then delete the recreation. - 01:18, February 27, 2018 (UTC) I know of no better version, and yeah, it's very well done but at the smallest detail level there's many issues. My confusion in how I handled things came from the fact that we've had a deletion discussion about this image before, which only focused on a copyright concern but I misremebered as focusing on accuracy as well (because I conflated it with this discussion (not that that does more then scratch the surface)) - so I was mistakenly kinda trying to walk the tightrope between objectively seeing issues and it having survived a deletion discussion. So in summary, unless you've got further questions/concerns, the new run + deletion seems the right course of action to me. -- Capricorn (talk) 01:55, February 27, 2018 (UTC) Cite what? Cite what, per *what* forum?? -- Renegade54 (talk) 20:58, March 1, 2018 (UTC) :Cite the naming convention your using to justify moving a bunch of pages without discussion, because the top post in Ten Forward is why these are capitalized now. - 21:03, March 1, 2018 (UTC) ::You could have at least left a link on his talk page TO the discussion rather than just reverting. Let's have some communication amongst ourselves here. -- sulfur (talk) 21:06, March 1, 2018 (UTC) :I'm not the one here who isn't talking. Check around first maybe, or just assume I know what I'm doing, since I'm suppose to assume that for others. - 21:12, March 1, 2018 (UTC) ::When you're doing a bunch of reverts, leave a message on his page. I didn't see that happening. -- sulfur (talk) 21:14, March 1, 2018 (UTC) :When you're moving a bunch of pages and reverting another user without discussion, it would be nice to say something other than citing a phantom guideline in an edit summary. So, am I the pot or the kettle here? - 21:17, March 1, 2018 (UTC) Wait, you're the one who reverted work that *I've* done over many years... without discussing any of that with me. Or does this only work to your benefit, and not for anyone else? The lower case format for class and type has been around for a long time; it may be an unwritten/undocumented convention, but it *has* existed. And by insisting that every "phantom" guideline be documented, you put yourself in the same leaky boat as some of the rule lawyers we've fought in the past who demand to see where a format or convention is documented... and then we get hammered by other who say we have to damn many rules and regulations. -- Renegade54 (talk) 22:21, March 1, 2018 (UTC) :You may have noticed I asked first, and left it alone for over a year, so I'm not some rule lawyer trying to shove this through on a lack of documentation, you just don't have a leg to stand on. I never said it wasn't a thing we did, but we don't do it now, and we followed the guidelines while changing it, so if you have a problem with it, or could have answered the question, you had 17 months to say something. Decisions get made by those who show up and participate, and unlike some apparently, I want a record of it. You don't get to just arbitrarily override that because that's not how it was done back in the days of ENT. I'm fine with those who claim we have too many rules, because those people weren't going to read them anyways, so I'm not going to be bother by trying to make all people on the internet like me. You can say that's a leaky boat, but considering the whole point of the site is to document things with references, it seems pretty weird to not write things like this down when this shit happens every few years. - 23:14, March 1, 2018 (UTC) Star Trek Timelines wiki link I was wondering if you wouldn't mind creating an external link template in the vein of Template:STOwiki which links to the Star Trek Timelines wiki instead? I'm not brilliant with wiki templates but I think it would be a useful one to have. Thanks. --| TrekFan Open a channel 20:53, March 4, 2018 (UTC) :See . - 09:34, March 5, 2018 (UTC) Thanks, Archduk3. Appreciated. --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:58, March 5, 2018 (UTC) Sorry to bother you again, but further to the above would it also be possible to create the accompanying template (as in ) for inline links? --| TrekFan Open a channel 03:12, March 16, 2018 (UTC) Double thumb template Just wanted to say I really like your double thumbnail template. I expect to use it a lot. Nice work. --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:55, March 9, 2018 (UTC) Category:Transwarp Dear Archduk3, I think its better to include the category Transwarp in the category Propulsion and not in the category Warp. Apart from the name Warp and Transwarp are mostly completely different technical concepts. Thx. --Mark McWire (talk) 05:55, March 18, 2018 (UTC) :And I think you're wrong, and that you need to make a case for this to stick. - 07:04, March 18, 2018 (UTC) :: Transwarp is NOT a subdivision of warp. It's a term for a various bandwidth of technologies. Borg use transwarp conduits, which is not the same as a warp field. Its more like a wormhole. --Mark McWire (talk) 07:13, March 18, 2018 (UTC)